The chapter provides an overview of Kendon’s research biography, describing the origins of the theoretical notions and categories for analysis that he developed, e.g. gesture unit, gesture phrase, preparation, stroke, hold, kinesic action, the ways in which gestures can perform referential (through forms of pointing and depiction) and pragmatic functions (including operational, performative, modal, and parsing functions). The data he considered included not only speakers’ gestures, but also signed languages of different types, e.g. those used by the Deaf (primary sign languages), to those used for ritualistic or professional reasons (alternate sign languages). Discussion of the latter notes their structural relation to the spoken languages of their users. Locations and communities in which Kendon studied visible action as utterance include Great Britian, Naples, Italy; Papua New Guinea, and the United States; and among Aboriginal people in Australia. The work finishes with issues related to the study of language origins. Emphasis is placed throughout on the limitations of the term ‘gesture’ and the author’s preference for other terms, such as ‘utterance dedicated visible action’.

This chapter considers how Samuel Johnson’s various disabilities shaped perceptions of him during his lifetime and continue to influence critical and biographical assessments of his personality, conversational prowess, and literary style. Given that modern conceptions of disability formed in the nineteenth century, I discuss why interpretations of Johnson’s mental and physical impairments might be better served by focusing on terms that were current in the eighteenth century, such as melancholy and peculiarity. Johnson’s friends and associates frequently commented on the “peculiarity” of his bodily movements. I examine episodes in which these peculiarities inspired people to stare at Johnson or to imitate him. These episodes reveal the deeper significance that eighteenth-century men and women ascribed to unusual and surprising forms of embodiment. I conclude by exploring the intriguing connections critics have made between Johnson’s “peculiar” body and his distinctive prose style.